S Rausheena Udyog Ltd v. State of U.P. and Other and this Court, vide ju

settlement of dispute between the parties by mutual discussion failing which to be decided by a sole arbitrator. The clause further provides that the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by mutual consent of the parties and failing such consensus, Principal Secretary, Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh shall be the sole arbitrator.

5. It is contended that some dispute arose between the parties relating to pending payment with respect to the supply of material in terms of the agreement as such, considering clause

1.13.1 of the agreement, the applicant sent a letter dated

10.06.2024, a copy of which is annexure 12 to the application, for the purpose of mutual discussion and settling the dispute.

6. It is contended that once the respondents failed to respond to the request of mutual discussion, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause and sent a legal notice dated 02.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure 13 to the application, proposing the name of three arbitrators.

7. It is contended that despite the said notice having been served, the opposite parties have failed to appoint any arbitrator and accordingly, the cause of action has arisen to the applicant for filing of an instant application for appointment of an arbitrator. It is further contended that being peeved against the applicant, the opposite parties had issued a show cause notice dated 19.07.2024 requiring the applicant to show cause as to why an order of recovery of Rupees Eighteen Crores and odd should not be passed.

8. Despite the applicant having submitted a reply, a recovery order dated 27.07.2024 was issued amounting to Rupees Eighteen Crores and odd. The applicant being aggrieved filed Writ C No.6642 of 2024 in Re: M/S Rausheena Udyog Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Other and this Court, vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2024, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the application, has quashed the show cause notice dated

19.07.2024 and its consequential order dated 27.07.2024 and the respondents have been directed that they may issue a fresh and/or supplementary notice to the petitioner and upon a submission of a reply by the petitioner, necessary order may be passed.

9. It is contended that despite the aforesaid order being passed by the writ Court, the respondents have failed to proceed in the matter but mere pendency of the aforesaid matter cannot be considered as an impediment in the matter for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement dated 25.04.2018 more particularly considering Clause 1.13.1 as a dispute has arisen between the parties and despite the notice having been sent to the respondents, the respondents have failed to appoint an arbitrator.

10. On the other hand, Shri Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has argued that as the matter is under consideration with the respondents in terms of the order passed by the writ Court dated 08.08.2024, as such, there would not be any requirement for appointment of an arbitrator. However, there is no dispute pertaining to the agreement dated 25.04.2018 between the parties and Clause 1.13.1 of the agreement which pertains to an appointment of an arbitrator.

11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that there was an agreement entered into between the parties on 25.04.2018 for supply of ICDS Food at various aganwadi / mini anganwadi. Some dispute arose between the parties relating to pending payment with respect to the supply material. Despite agreement dated

25.04.2018 containing a clause for arbitration, more particularly, Clause 1.13.1 and the applicant having initially sent a notice for mutual discussion and thereafter a notice for appointment of an arbitrator, the respondents have failed to appoint an arbitrator.

12. Considering that there is an existing agreement between the parties and the fact that the said agreement also pertains to appointment of an arbitrator and the respondents have failed to appoint an arbitrator, as such, a case is made out for appointment of an arbitrator by this Court.

13. So far as the order of the writ Court dated 08.08.2024 is concerned, a perusal of the order passed by the writ Court would indicate that nowhere the writ Court had restrained for appointment of an arbitrator. Moreover, in case a recovery notice may have been issued against the petitioner which initially has been quashed by the writ Court and thereafter a fresh notice has been issued, the said proceedings may proceed simultaneously but pendency of the said proceedings prime facie cannot be considered to be an impediment for appointment of an arbitrator.

14. Considering the aforesaid discussion, the Court hereby proposes to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.U. Khan, Address - Flat No. 404, Samaiah Malrose Square, Sector- 6-c, Vrindavan Yojana, Lucknow-226029, Mobile No.- 9415348797, as an arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.

15. Let a copy of the pleadings on record along with the relevant provisions of the Act with amending Act 2015 be sent to Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.U. Khan, for eliciting his disclosures on format under the schedule in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act, 1996 and Schedule VI and VII as amended by Act 2015, appended thereto and also his consent for appointment as an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant shall supply an additional copy of the application to the office for the said purpose within a week.

17. List this case after the reply/consent is received. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 S. Shivhare

settlement of dispute between the parties by mutual discussion failing which to be decided by a sole arbitrator. The clause further provides that the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by mutual consent of the parties and failing such consensus, Principal Secretary, Law, Government of Uttar Pradesh shall be the sole arbitrator.

5. It is contended that some dispute arose between the parties relating to pending payment with respect to the supply of material in terms of the agreement as such, considering clause

1.13.1 of the agreement, the applicant sent a letter dated

10.06.2024, a copy of which is annexure 12 to the application, for the purpose of mutual discussion and settling the dispute.

6. It is contended that once the respondents failed to respond to the request of mutual discussion, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause and sent a legal notice dated 02.07.2024, a copy of which is annexure 13 to the application, proposing the name of three arbitrators.

7. It is contended that despite the said notice having been served, the opposite parties have failed to appoint any arbitrator and accordingly, the cause of action has arisen to the applicant for filing of an instant application for appointment of an arbitrator. It is further contended that being peeved against the applicant, the opposite parties had issued a show cause notice dated 19.07.2024 requiring the applicant to show cause as to why an order of recovery of Rupees Eighteen Crores and odd should not be passed.

8. Despite the applicant having submitted a reply, a recovery order dated 27.07.2024 was issued amounting to Rupees Eighteen Crores and odd. The applicant being aggrieved filed Writ C No.6642 of 2024 in Re: M/S Rausheena Udyog Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Other and this Court, vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2024, a copy of which is annexure 18 to the application, has quashed the show cause notice dated

19.07.2024 and its consequential order dated 27.07.2024 and the respondents have been directed that they may issue a fresh and/or supplementary notice to the petitioner and upon a submission of a reply by the petitioner, necessary order may be passed.

9. It is contended that despite the aforesaid order being passed by the writ Court, the respondents have failed to proceed in the matter but mere pendency of the aforesaid matter cannot be considered as an impediment in the matter for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement dated 25.04.2018 more particularly considering Clause 1.13.1 as a dispute has arisen between the parties and despite the notice having been sent to the respondents, the respondents have failed to appoint an arbitrator.

10. On the other hand, Shri Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has argued that as the matter is under consideration with the respondents in terms of the order passed by the writ Court dated 08.08.2024, as such, there would not be any requirement for appointment of an arbitrator. However, there is no dispute pertaining to the agreement dated 25.04.2018 between the parties and Clause 1.13.1 of the agreement which pertains to an appointment of an arbitrator.

11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that there was an agreement entered into between the parties on 25.04.2018 for supply of ICDS Food at various aganwadi / mini anganwadi. Some dispute arose between the parties relating to pending payment with respect to the supply material. Despite agreement dated

25.04.2018 containing a clause for arbitration, more particularly, Clause 1.13.1 and the applicant having initially sent a notice for mutual discussion and thereafter a notice for appointment of an arbitrator, the respondents have failed to appoint an arbitrator.

12. Considering that there is an existing agreement between the parties and the fact that the said agreement also pertains to appointment of an arbitrator and the respondents have failed to appoint an arbitrator, as such, a case is made out for appointment of an arbitrator by this Court.

13. So far as the order of the writ Court dated 08.08.2024 is concerned, a perusal of the order passed by the writ Court would indicate that nowhere the writ Court had restrained for appointment of an arbitrator. Moreover, in case a recovery notice may have been issued against the petitioner which initially has been quashed by the writ Court and thereafter a fresh notice has been issued, the said proceedings may proceed simultaneously but pendency of the said proceedings prime facie cannot be considered to be an impediment for appointment of an arbitrator.

14. Considering the aforesaid discussion, the Court hereby proposes to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.U. Khan, Address - Flat No. 404, Samaiah Malrose Square, Sector- 6-c, Vrindavan Yojana, Lucknow-226029, Mobile No.- 9415348797, as an arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.

15. Let a copy of the pleadings on record along with the relevant provisions of the Act with amending Act 2015 be sent to Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.U. Khan, for eliciting his disclosures on format under the schedule in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act, 1996 and Schedule VI and VII as amended by Act 2015, appended thereto and also his consent for appointment as an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant shall supply an additional copy of the application to the office for the said purpose within a week.

17. List this case after the reply/consent is received. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 S. Shivhare